"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
Full Story

Larry Alan Burns, the federal district judge in San Diego who just last month sentenced Tuscon shooter Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison, is no darling of the gun control movement.

Burns is a self-described conservative, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, and he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, which held that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for self-defense. He is also a gun owner.

But while sentencing Loughner in November, Burns questioned the need for high-capacity magazines like the one Loughner had in his Glock, and said he regretted how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. On Thursday, reacting to last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., Burns publicly called for a new assault weapons ban “with some teeth this time,” in an op-ed published by The Los Angeles Times.

“Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Burns wrote.“Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.”

Burns argued that while the ban that expired in 2004 wasn’t very stringent,“at least it was something.” Half of the nation’s deadliest shootings, Burns pointed out, have occurred since the ban expired. In his view, high-capacity magazines fall outside the scope of good-faith debates about gun violence.

“I get it.” Burns wrote.“Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the ‘mass’ out of ‘mass shooting,’ or at least make the perpetrator’s job a bit harder.”

Here’s how Burns concluded his piece:

There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.

Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Yeah all the drug running countries feeding off US junkies. If they never had that trade would they have a problem with guns at all.So while you are at it, ban all guns and make drugs legal. Problem solved for everyone.

Good NewsSales of previously owned US homes rose in November to their highest level in three years, figures have shown.Sales rose 5.9% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.04 million last month.Meanwhile the economy grew faster than previously thought in the third quarter, at an annualised rate of 3.1%.The Commerce Department had previously estimated that growth hit 2.7% in the three months to September.However economists still predict much slower growth in the final three months of the year.Rising pricesThe NAR said that there was "healthy demand" in the housing market.

Investors picking up bargain properties is a significant part of the housing market, many of them cash sales.

Growth rates in percentages from extremely depressed levels are misleading.

If the value of a house drops from $200K to $100K, that is a 50% decrease. If the value then increases from $100K to $150K, that is a 50% increase. So a 50% decrease followed by a 50% increase results in a 25% loss, no matter how you cut the cake.

"...there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals..."

"... 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness."

<quoted text> You & your followers are dumb by definition. Something you don't like, you run to your computers & post stupid messages as a tactic of empowerment. The inevitable gun bill nears, you run out & by guns with no propose other than your delusional self sense of empowerment. Look up the bill Barack signed lastyear with the UN. This was already in the making. Sandy Hook was just his reason for the public. I've read only part of the treaty, but it states that in the state of emergency, the UN in conjunction with the US will go door to door & confiscate all firearms legal & illegal alike. Why do you all think they've been building mass graves & concentration camps all across the states? The NRA & your type are only feeding the beast by refusing to cooperate with simple gun bans. It also states that the united armed forces are to so so by force. Me personally, I dont care. I made a name in these streets without a gun & with no retaliation in fear for gun retaliation. I'm not making this up. I dont have a link, but just google Obama's treaty with the UN /gun confiscation & it should take you right to it. The only other times america spent vast amounts of money on ammunition was in the wake of wars. Hope ya'll gun nuts are ready to die for your 200yr old right to bare arms. Get ready for a bloodbath!

<quoted text>Depends on the state and often even the local municipality.One of my rentals is very close to an elementary school__no sex offenders and (up to) three times the penalty for sale of controlled substances. My cherished tenants there are clean as a whistle but when/if they leave I'm selling that place for whatever someone is willing to pay. Life ain't long enough to own rentals near public schools in FLA.

So, this type of legislation reduces the value of property located near schools?

Republicans push us toward depressionThis isn't good news for Republicans because a large majority (53 percent to 38 percent) of the electorate blames George W. Bush not Barack Obama for the condition of today's economy.

Thanks for the answer. That's what the "news" always tells us.The crazy shot themself. IF there were skilled, trained, licensed armed personnel with a firearm, they could have shot him dead BEFORE he harmed any little children. Hiding and cowering.They had no chance. No defense. NO protection.Stricter Gun Laws. What a freakin' joke. While Law Abiding Gun Owners, who rarely ever kill a person with their weapon, should be disarmed, criminals and crazies will still be armed.And just wondering WHY he wore a bullet proof vest ( to a Gun Free Zone ), so the news reported. IF he had planned on killing himself, then it wouldn't have been to avoid being riddled with Law Enforcement bullets ... Just seems an "oddity" in this story.<quoted text>

Skilled, trained like Nancy Lanza? How'd that work out for her bobo? You're all retarded. Not an iota of your own brain power. Friggin wussies who need arsenals becuse you're missing the family jewels and your brain.

Larry Alan Burns, the federal district judge in San Diego who just last month sentenced Tuscon shooter Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison, is no darling of the gun control movement.Burns is a self-described conservative, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, and he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, which held that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for self-defense. He is also a gun owner.But while sentencing Loughner in November, Burns questioned the need for high-capacity magazines like the one Loughner had in his Glock, and said he regretted how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. On Thursday, reacting to last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., Burns publicly called for a new assault weapons ban “with some teeth this time,” in an op-ed published by The Los Angeles Times.“Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Burns wrote.“Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.”Burns argued that while the ban that expired in 2004 wasn’t very stringent,“at least it was something.” Half of the nation’s deadliest shootings, Burns pointed out, have occurred since the ban expired. In his view, high-capacity magazines fall outside the scope of good-faith debates about gun violence.“I get it.” Burns wrote.“Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the ‘mass’ out of ‘mass shooting,’ or at least make the perpetrator’s job a bit harder.”Here’s how Burns concluded his piece:There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/201...

Federal judges should apply the law that exists and not advocate new legislation. This editorial should disqualify Burns from any related case.

<quoted text>"silly"For the most part we do not institutionalize those with mental problems. There are to damn many attorneys working to keep them on the street. Then if they commit an atrocity those same attorneys blame it on an unfair society.Peace

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.